Vitali Klitschko would beat current top 3 heavyweights

wladmir > vitali anyway.

 

BREAKING NEWS

40-year old man was tired after 12 rounds of boxing

Mass hysteria on the streets

 

I dont think you know what H2H means. If you're going by success Vitali only lost due to being cut in a fight he was up and another where he got injured in a fight where he was up. Didnt lose a fight for like ten years after that. Keep on.

 

he lost when hr stepped up.

barely stepped up after that, ko.

 

pulev, not chambers.
pukevs never beaten anyone either, so worthless point claiming he never lost since then.

 

Vitali beats the **** out of anyone.

 

Didn't a way overweight fat chisora had Fury hurt badly in the first fight? I don't recall chisora who was in better shape had vitali badly hurt smh. Remember that was a 40 year old decline vitali that fought chisora. Imagine chisora facing the version of vitali that fought Lewis, Johnson, Sanders, Williams before he first retired? Chisora wouldn't last 12 rounds.

 

Vitali owns these bums inside out. Maybe they can try and hit and hold him like Lewis did but they are not as skilled in the dark arts as Lewis.

 

That wasn't the question. Don't change the topic!

I repeat the question:

If Sam is better than Pulev, then why did he lose to two guys (Eddie Chambers and Robert Helenius) who have never beaten anybody better than Pulev's best opponents and why hasn't Pulev also lost to anybody as bad as Eddie Chambers and Robert Helenius?

Answer that, then we can proceed to the next step. You made the claim, and now you've got to justify your claim and I'm not going to let you escape this.

 

there are no better wins of pulev.

escape. ... lol

 

That wasn't the question! Remain on topic!

I didn't ask if Pulev had better wins. I'm asking you, why did Sam lose to Eddie Chambers and Robert Helenius without Pulev ever losing to opponents of such a caliber, if Sam is supposed to be better than Pulev?

Answer! I challenge you! Why are you scared? Come on then! I'm waiting!

 

They arent better, your question is wrong. Helenius and CHambers arent worse than anything PUlev has won against.

How am I avoiding a question that is wrong in the first place, you funny man. You're avoiding asking a question that makes sense.

Please less of the "why is purple so green"

 

I fear for your mental health, dude, thats about it. Please try and make sense.

 

Stop avoiding the question!

I've asked three times already. I ask again for the fourth time:

If Sam is better than Pulev, then why did he lose to Eddie Chambers and Robert Helenius and why hasn't Pulev ever lost to opponents of such a caliber?

Answer!

Or are you now claiming Eddie Chambers and Robert Helenius are better than Kubrat Pulev? I challenge you to say yes if you have the courage.

Answer either of the above questions or both!

I didn't ask you why purple is so green. My questions are all valid. You haven't PROVEN they aren't. So unless you answer those questions, you get exposed as a coward with no argument or credibility.

 

What is your point you idiot? Peter was caught flush by Helenius and went down - just like Teper five months ago for his only stoppage loss. Prime Vitali would take apart your Femster and you know it. It's not even a competitive fight.